Unpopular opinion: he shouldn't. There really is no rule against being in the board of a company. Same goes for Tom Balthazar from SP.A, he didn't do anything wrong.

What we are now experiencing is a witch hunt for everyone who has an income outside of politics. There is no rule against that. The scandal in Wallonia was actually a scandal. This is an overreaction.

Should there be a rule against that? Perhaps. But that is an entirely different question.

Even more unpopular opinion: politicians don't earn enough. When you are active in politics, you'll spend countless hours effectively volunteering in local politics, meetings, events... and only a small minority will ever get an actual paying job. An even smaller minority will ever make enough for that to be their main source of income. The minority that does can make an actual career out of it.

These people who actually get a political career are typically people with particular skills. People who could easily make a ton of money in the private sector. And quite often, they eventually leave politics. Because they aren't attacked for doing nothing wrong, because they can have a great income without people foaming at the mouth, because they actually have a future there.

But people rant angrily that an MP makes more than a 9-5 cashier at a local supermarket. Because we don't understand that our politicians ought to be the best people for the job. Because we don't assume that we have voted for people who are hard to find and have particular skills. And the particratic system means that we only get the option to vote for people who will be popular.

Force politicians to have no income next to their salary, but up their salary enough to keep the ones that we need. Guess what, most of those have left already.

This is just another witch hunt. This time it's not entrepreneurs, it's politicians.